cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Great War III
Bias issue? It's kind of biased against the Initiative. (Unknown) :I might once-over this thing and see if I can make it a bit more...accurate. It's also missing a lot of the backstory. I'm going to need to work with a couple people on the "other side" to capture the attitudes right. Drop me a line if you have any ideas. Oh, and I didn't actually consider adding plaid to the dramanations meter. TheNeverender 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This opening sentence is clearly setting up the article to focus on Legion's side of the war, I think it should be revised, or removed. The events still make sense and the bias issue is much improved if this section were deleted. :"First, the NPO the GATO to start the war. It was well-known that GATO and The Legion had a MDP signed, and it was noted that The Legion's members were at DEFCON 1, so the questions that would determine the path the war took became "When are The Legion going to war?" and "Who will The Legion go to war against?" JTBeowulf 16:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Devoting an entire paragraph to Aegis "battle cries" and 300 Jokes on IRC and forums is being far too unecessarily in favor of Aegis. That issue serves no concievable purpose to explaining a ballanced accout the events of the war. JTBeowulf 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I keep seeing new information being added without sources but with alot of "many people say..." or "according to such&such thread." Alot of the information even has accurate time and everything, but no one is supplying a link or source for a large amount of this new material. Alot of the bias issues would go away if there was simply a legitimate origin for the information other than "alot of people started to feel/think/say/whisper etc.." JTBeowulf 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Very valid but many of the "sources" are in private forums and would be difficult to post. The mpol forum post had been leaked publicly so it's easy to include but the other ones are still private and cant easily be sourced. what to do here? DelSolid 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) I just put up several of the links for the DoW's from March 19th in the "Events of the War" section. I understand what you are saying though, Delsolid, and it would seem that if such a topic or discussion was mentioned only within the private forums, then it was not a well known, though so many points start with "it was well known" or "many people knew," and need something explaining how "everyone" knew about it. It is stuff that serves no purpose in explaining the narrative of the events and was privy only to one or two forums that are hardly a credible reference. All the links I'm posting are being tracked down in the CN forums, but I have to dig a little so it is taking time. JTBeowulf 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, I posted the links to almost all of the DoW's in the "Events of the War," section and put got WAPA's in the right order (apparently they did have a DoW before NAAC). Alot of the mentionings of the MDPs probably are on private forums, but if anyone else knows if they were announced, please track them down, cause that would really help. JTBeowulf 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) I cleaned up the "Cause for War" section to get rid of the uncredited statements about how the war was interpreted. Without some sort of source, I don't think the article should reference the community as believing mostly one way or another. I also shifted the leaked forum post to the "Events of the War" section because it did not explain anything extra about NPO's justifications for initiating the war, and acts as a better prelude to the DoW's when they are connected in that section. JTBeowulf 23:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Should we include The Sphere as an underlined or sub-section in the Legion side? Example. In the GW2 wiki, there is a League subsection, and under it others, is it possible that under all the alliances fighting the Initiative, we should put The Sphere as a subsection aswell? :-The Sphere could be added as one alliance, but if they are fighting against Initiative and haven't explicitly stated they're not fighting for Sparta (or whatever you call it), they would be placed under Sparta. ::-The Sphere is an alliance of many alliances, one of which I am apart of, so thay should be put a one alliance. FERGUS_MANERGUS :::-How do you mean? Have all of the sphere grouped under one banner on Aegeis side? Does anyone know how to edit the flags to be a little smaller? Either that or list names and not flags, because it takes up so much space, it shoves the actual article over to the side and makes it harder to read. It's just a pet peeve of mine, I don't know if anyone else feels that the combatant list is too big, I just wanted to put that out there. JTBeowulf 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC) : I went ahead and added the sphere as a subsection. I also made the MDC flag the correct size. - CirrusOfMalla 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Markup Reminder A reminder to all: 1) Please sign any items in the discussion page by using four tildas (~~~~). This is for Timestamp reasons as well as identification. 2) If you find statements that you feel are biased you can use flags to help clarify. Examples of these flags are the "Source" flag and the "Opinion needs balancing flag" . Salpta 16:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) :Nothing is being done about statements that have been flagged as lopsided for some time now. I used to try and edit them out, but they would be put back up over and over again, so now I've left the flags up and they are just getting left in. I'd like to know why that is. JTBeowulf 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) ::You may want to go to the user's talk page and ask them. As for actually fixing the lopsided entries... We'll just have to manage the best we can, as I've no solutions. Salpta 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Bias Issues Yeah this does sort of focus too much on Legion, you might want to try to get some reports from other leaders on what was going on with them when the fighting started, like FAN, TOP, GOONS, or NPO. I think having the same information up there for one of the Initiative members as there is for Legion and GATO right now, would be a step in the right direction. Ideally we want all of both sides mentioned the same way. :I think I good way to explain the progression of the war, using hard data collected from the Sanctioned Alliance Statistic Depot on the CN Forums,: :http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=46337 :... would be to make a section based off of how the strength and alliance numbers changed throughout the War so the article doesn't simply explain how the war started and that it finished with X surrendering to Y on such and such date. :You should also post a timeline for all DoW's, a timeline for all DoN's and then try to find out who was engaging who more specifically. This will help in the understanding of how the war progressed for both sides because alliances like Legion jumped in later changing the outcome of the war dramatically. :Hope that works, I guess the best thing to do is just get an official story from some of the Initiative members to make it more even handed. JTBeowulf 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :I don't think we need half the article to read off the Legion surrender terms. Links to the terms would be better. Henry19 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) As a corrolary to the last suggestion about the war's progression, I think we should post the graph of alliance strength throughout the war in order to show how Initiative and Aegis have preformed. It's a great way to keep track of when the major events took place because on the day-to-day chart you can clearly see when strength increases/decreases the most dramatically. JTBeowulf 15:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC) First to come to GATO's Aid I read in the forums GATO praising WAPA for being the first to come to their aid (the Wiki article mentioned NAAC instead). Also as a result they were heavely targetted (assume to discourage other alliances joining) and suffered great losses in the War /b/ Strikes with the traditional CP posted CP and Animal Cruilty wtf, how did this event transpire!? NEED MOAR!~ Seeing as the forums are down, we probably won't know more until Monday --Sven the Proud 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Edited the section of the article mentioning this, as /b/ could not have attacked it as they had disbanded - only various former /b/ members including the ex-Emperor did so. would it be possible to also mention the attempted DDoS attack?--199.126.227.65 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Can any of you actually provide proof other than speculation of a DDoS attack, and its source of former members of the /b/ Alliance? the flagging of Independent and Neutral Nations joining the war I know several people who quit IRON to join GWIII on both sides Initiative and Aegis, what kind of source is needed? -IamJoe 03:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) :None. We shouldn't handle individual nations here unless they played a critical role in the war's development. (ie Furseksie and the /b/ LUEicide). If a nation left a neutral alliance to fight, then it should be noted in that nation's wiki page. Salpta 13:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Legion Strength Level As of March 30th, the Legion has descended the farthest in Alliance strength according to the "Alliance Statistics" page on CN: http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats.asp I know at the beginning of the war they were in 2nd place just behind NPO, now they are in 4th Place. I know from memory that they have dropped over 2,000,000 strength points since the war's beginning, and to my knowledge they were predominately enganged with FAN and TOP nations, at least at outbreak, though I don't have a source that confirms that. The Stats Depot on the Open World Forum maintains a graph of alliance strength over the war, which would be good to post if we could get a copy. JTBeowulf 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Here you go - uevil.maybe.net/2007-03-30_ANS.png That is the last posted Alliance Strength graph, as posted by GOON Unspeakable Evil in the pinned Stats topic. Don't think there will be a new one until the game is active again. As of 1135PST on the 31st (the game itself was shut down a couple hours later); FAN Alliance NS 4,551,364 Legion Alliance NS 4,924,706 GATO Alliance NS 2,882,591 Legion was approx. 8.6M when they launched their attack on FAN et al at ~2200CST on the 21st. They lost nearly half their total NS in 9+ days. Is March Madness over? I am a little confused as to whether March Madness is still going on: some would argue that it has only taken a pause due to the forum and games being down. Yet with the month of March behind us, and April 2007 beginning. As well as many alliances surrendering to opposing forces, isn't March Madness truly over? --In answer, it didn't have anything to do with March, but certainly with madness. If you take the Aegis propaganda at face value, that this was 'a fight for justice and balance', then there is absolutely no reason for it to stop just because of an interruption. And as the Initiative forces are so handily defeating the Aegis there's no reason for them to stop, either. The issues of Emotion and Betrayal and Dishonor and Vengeance are all still on the table. If a premature halt is forced, the 4th Great War will just come sooner. Better one side be thoroughly beaten so that the illusory condition misinterpreted as 'Peace' lasts for a longer period. ::March madness was simply a nickname for the war. GWIII is still raging, just a forced peace is currently blanketing the world. AS soon as the game comes back on line, the war will continue J Andres 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Dark Friday is all wrong First of all CP was posted BEFORE /b/ was disbanded a few /b/tards went rouge and nuked VE when orderd not to... facing perma ZI they posted CP becuase they just didnt care... Furyseski chose to disband /b/ becuase of the potential fallout from the CP Get it right you CN fags :Hey BTW!!!!!!! i cant post the source becuase its from http://www.en cyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Cyber_nations ::Dark Friday is now ALMOST PERFECT! lol, Somthing needs to be said of Furyseiki making a deal with VE and others that she would quit the game if the other powers would allow /b/ to peacefully leave and play in other alliances without being ZI'd Emperor Rick 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) :::She is an hero ::I've just been to the dramatica site and there is nothing there of value to this wiki. Salpta 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC) This is what happend Chronological Order any other way is wrong STFU 1) /b/ members launched nukes despite standing orders not to... /b/ rogues 2) Those who launched the nukes were being zi'd... They (the same people) then started posting CP in the fourms 3) Additional /b/ Players started joining in with the spam 4) Fury, unable to control her members, and to protect those who werent doing anything, disbanded /b/ 5) EVEN MORE began to spam CyberNations. 6) 4chan /b/ and 7chan's /b/ & /i/ launch DoS attacks on CN shutting the game down 7) Fury makes a deal with VE to be zi'd herself and to quit the game in return for the saftey of ex/b/ members Do not edit out other peoples arguments. This is the order, and the argument: This is an entirely incorrect summary of Dark Friday. 1) Furseiseki created a topic announcing the disbandment of the /b/ Alliance. 2) A few former members of the /b/ alliance, including the former Emperor, posted pictures against the Invisionfree rules. Some were against the law. 3) The moderators banned the members posting things against the rules, various ex-members were decrying the acts, as is still visible in the thread. Various members simply created new accounts, and were subsequently banned. 4) Creating new forum accounts became banned, and a short period of time after that, the forum shut down. The bias and assumption implied by the OP and the editer of the wiki are preposterous and unprofessional - keep your politics out of here. "First of all CP was posted BEFORE /b/ was disbanded" This is incorrect. CP (child pornography) was posted in the disbandment thread, nd had not been seen on CN prior to this, so for it to be posted BEFORE /b/ disbanded is impossible. "a few /b/tards went rouge and nuked VE when orderd not to... facing perma ZI they posted CP becuase they just didnt care..." There were rogues from many alliances, the main point is that they were not ordered too - that is what makes a rogue. Your argument is circular logic and a fallacy. Saying they posted CP because they faced perma-ZI is untrue, in the thread VE stated they would cease attacks on /b/ alliance and /b/ leadership, yet changed their minds after the pictures. The order of events is very clear in the thread. "Furyseski chose to disband /b/ becuase of the potential fallout from the CP" Furseiseki chose to disband /b/ before the CP had been posted, your argument is incorrect and impossible. Feel free to disprove it, instead of telling others to STFU. Go learn how to edit wikipedia responsibly, you can't even spell Furseiseki right. once again you are not paying attention Nuked, ZI'd, CP, Disband, MOAR CP..... events can happen during another event the long ass explaination fails go back to gaia online furfag 70.190.11.5 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Think logically, /b/ was winning againts VE... untill the nukes started flying. /b/ was royaly fucked by this and what added the chery on top was the CP... Seeing a international outcry fury disbanded /b/... I WAS THERE I SAW THE SHIT GO DOWN... STFU. only two people were posting CP before the disbandment... afterwards alot more was done. Just becuase you yourself didnt see it dosent mean it didnt happen. (btw) Furseiseki is the FURY version of seiseki.... fury is a shorter version since she IS a fury... be "an" hero and die. "a few /b/tards went rouge and nuked VE when orderd not to... facing perma ZI they posted CP becuase they just didnt care..." There were rogues from many alliances, the main point is that they were not ordered too - that is what makes a rogue. Your argument is circular logic and a fallacy. wow how dumb are you? /b/ nuclear rouge, from WITHIN THE ALLIANCE. FAN's forums also came under a DDoS attack in black friday and was down for 2 days. --DelSolid 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Alliance Purge I'm going to purge references (in the text and on the combatant list) to "alliances" that don't meet the following criteria: >5 Nations, >10 Score, and >100k NS. Honestly: We've 3 nation "Alliances" listed now. Anyone have a problem with this? Salpta 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) :no please do so, 5 nations is still kinda small Emperor Rick 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) :: Purge done. Alliances had to meet at least two of the criteria to remain. Of course I used good judgment, so I left alliances with significant growth potential behind. If I removed your alliance, and you put it back, please post what anacronym I should look for on the alliance lookup page so I don't make the mistake again. Salpta 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC) TOP seems to have been removed. It is a +100 member alliance, +60 score and soon reaching 2 million Nation Strentgh mark. TOP is also a member of the Initiative. Please add them as combatants ( Played major role in defeating The Legion ) TOP and FAN were the two leading combatants against Legion at the outbreak of hostilities. It wasn't until a day or two after that NoR and NPO and many of the other Initiative forces began re-enforcing that front. TOP, having survived the war on the side Initiative, did contribute a great deal, more than alot of nations already listed. Despite thier size, they should be listed. JTBeowulf 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC) :My mistake. I must have looked up the wrong abbreviation AND had my mind slip to not recognize it. I Apologize and have rectified my error. Salpta 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) The MHA was also missing and I have added our contributions as necessary. Working class Ruler 10:57, 30 September 2007 UIO Bias "The United Imperial Order" has never been used to describe Initiative forces in the forums or elsewhere to my knowledge. I believe this is an attempt at propagandizing the wiki. I suggest "Initiative Forces" instead. :Please explain the problem further. Propagandize in which way? This change and supporting pages were made by Chaosman of the NPO. If the NPO wants to describe the Aegis counterpart as the "United Imperial Order" then thats evening the playing field. After all the Aegis group doesn't refer to itself as "GATO, Legion, & Allies" Why should The Initiative and their allies? Salpta 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Speaking as a member of GOONS I have never heard anyone use the term "United Imperial Order" ever Soviet Canuckistan 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) ::This name never came up on the forums. It was always just The Initiative. J Andres 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Nobody has used the term United Imperial Order - This is the first time I have come to terms with it. I'd like to know who acknowledges the Initiative as thus. ~Aleks I was in the Initiative since TGW Day 0, and never has the title "United Imperial Order" appeared in an at least FAN, or CIS boards or IRC. Two major members of the Initiative have never used "The United Imperial Order," and throughout all of the Initiative DoW and other official policy posts on the CN forums, they refered to themselves as "The Initiative." JTBeowulf 14:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I have been in FAN for quite a while and have never even heard of "The United Imperial Order". The GATO/LEGION/NAAC side did refer to themselves as Aegis but the Initiative and allies never referred to themselves collectively as anything other than the Initiative and Allies of the Initiative. DelSolid 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC) So basically one person invented the term "United Imperial Order" and we are supposed to accept it? It didn't exist then and it doesnt exist now. Writing it into history because it makes things look cleaner is just wrong. Chaosman, Please show evidence of it's existance and use during the war or stop putting it back in.DelSolid 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) I believe the term 'United Imperial Order' was coined by Kaiser Martens of Nordreich but never caught on like Aegis did. Evidence Here Gunblade 06:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) I appologize for not clarifying. NPO and NoR sometimes use the term to describe those fighting on the side of the Initiative. I still fail to see how this is propaganda. Do I have permission to add it back in? Chaosman I personally would not want it back in but will of course yield if a majority wants it. IMO, the fact that so many of the combatants had never even heard of it, coupled with the fact that all the declarations of war and surrenders all list either individual alliances or the Initiative makes UIO a dead player. DelSolid 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) :As a neutral I never heard of UIO except here. Even if it was proposed by Martins in that thread, it clearly never caught on and should remain off the page. - CirrusOfMalla 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC) "NPO and NoR sometimes use the term to describe those fighting on the side of the Initiative." I have never once used or heard that word used to describe the Initiative and Allies. Bakunin's Dream 06:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Global Shifts of Power The article lists the Nation Strengths over time with the CN Forum style of Tier 1, Tier 2 etc... I think this is confusion. It would be very nice to have the actual combatants shown together to give a better idea of context. For example, NPO fought mainly GATO but it is grouped with the Legion in Tier 1. TOP, MHA, FAN and GGA fought with Legion but are listed in a different section. DelSolid 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Though the idea of posting the changes in nation strength (such as the graphs taken from the Alliance Stats Depot) is a good idea, sectioning off each "front" of who fought who specifically, would be a little too hard to calculate. However, if we could get official statements of who was focusing on who specifically, it might be a little easier to put 2 + 2 together, but with so many combatants going at eachother all from different tiers, I don't think we'd be able to sift through, at least accurately, the real numbers on some of the lower alliances. JTBeowulf 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC) :Not to mention that I do NOT think Neutrals (GPA & IRON) need listing in this section. We already have a section that explains what we did. The only value that comes to mind is that it would be a benchmark of how much the combatants could have grown. Salpta 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Regarding comments to the Legion Alliance: It was given the name, the Paper Tiger Alliance, or PTA (Compare to GATO and WAE), for its inability to fight the war effectively. ---Not Really Objective--- Minor Edits Record minor edits here. Changed "The War of Retribution" from the Aegis "names for the war" category to the Initiative+Allies category. Hawk11 12:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) -Scratch that, I am an idiot with the inability to read. Hawk11 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Title "The War for Justice" is listed under the Aegis "names for the war" category. Why is it that the article title includes an Aegis name, but not an Initiative+Allies name?Bakunin's Dream 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) :I believe it was chosen because if you also notice under the "Initiative and Allies" section one of the names is the "War of Justice" and since "The War for Justice" and "The War of Justice" are so similar it was chosen. Lol pie 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) ::I have never seen anyone who fought with the Initiative and allies use that name. Bakunin's Dream 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) References and Revisions I have reorganised the references section so they each one acts like a footnote. I have also edited the article itself in terms of grammar, and removed sections that were not cited. However, as one can see, the article itself is quite incomplete, because there are more sources (in the "Other" section, which is a temporary section that shall act as an archive of all links until this whole thing is fixed), the events and contents of which are not mentioned in a suitable, chronological manner. Even if my edits are objectionable, it is obvious that this article is in dire need of cleanup, rewriting, and revision. I am willing to lend a hand in this, but I hereby recommend that anyone interested pitch in in regard to extending and rewriting the actual article portion as well as referencing any passages with the approprite links (again, found in the "Other" section". Gatherum (talk • ) 19:44, February 1, 2010 (UTC)